Patrick Gordon said...

I believe he should have his license revoked permanently. These kind of people aren't good for the sport or the horses. How are we ever going to portray a better image if all the public remembers the drugs, race fixing etc?

The other issue is the abuse of the poor animal. That alone should call for a permanent revocation. We don't want or need people like this in our sport.

posted at 4:10 PM on Apr 29th 2008

Paul Siegel said...

In response to Allan Schott's remarks:

(1) There are instances (most commonly financial responsibility suspensions due to civil judgements) where an individual who may not be able to race in a particular state may still obtain a license in another. The reciprocity agreements among the states usually cover racing violations, not financial issues. In the case of the California owner, he was facing criminal charges which were not related to racing. He had not yet been convicted of any crime. It is actually possible that the NJRC was initially not even aware of the criminal charges he was facing, as communication of such information is notoriously poor.

(2) NJ reinstated Eric Ledford's license as part of agreement that had been reached to settle his case. If you want to question that, fine, but you should do so knowing that the case against Eric Ledford was very, very weak. He was not trainer of record, was not found to be in possession of any illegal substances, and was not a stable employee. Under the plea bargain, he was convicted of failing to report the unlawful activities to the authorities.

(3) As to Ken Rucker, you have it backwards. It was NJ that tossed him out on his rear end, while Illinois continued to let him race after the EPO positive. Please also keep in mind that his EPO positive was for the presence of antibodies, not the presence of EPO itself. Because of the nature of the antibody test, which can produce a positive months after the EPO weas administered, a positive on that test does not carry a trainer suspension, but only a suspension of the affected horse until it tests clean.

posted at 3:36 PM on Apr 29th 2008

Allan Schott said...

My comment has nothing to do with the Meadowlands; I understand their situation. However, if the NJRC didn't give the person a license, it wouldn't be an issue.

I don't recall specifically a person who currently is under suspension but licensed in NJ, but by reading the Horsemen and other trade magazines and websites, I certainly do recall instances of this occuring. I do know there is an owner from CA who was recently suspended for violating the rules regarding moving horses out of state within the 'jail time' who was then allowed to race at the Meadowlands meaning NJ either granted or didn't honor CA's suspension.

But tell me, what is NJ doing giving Eric Ledford a license? Ken Rucker? These are people who should have been ruled off and not given a license. You are letting people in with a checkered past at best and sending the wrong signal to the public. As the NJRC will even tell you, having a license is a privilege, not a right.

posted at 11:29 AM on Apr 29th 2008

Paul Siegel said...

Andrew:

Not be argumentative, but first you said:
"Paul. I understand Allan's point. Because the Meadowlands is owned by the NJSEA, a public agency, it is dramatically more difficult for its operators to ban a trainer without affording a certain (and in my opinion overdone) measure of "due process." Woodbine, on the other hand, being a private entity, can simply say: get out and stay out. So can Monticello, which also has been very aggressive, in my view, in getting rid of bad eggs."

That is clearly not a licensing issue. Then, after I replied, you said:

"No, Paul. The issue also relates to licensing. New Jersey in my view could and should do more to condition licensing-- and license renewals-- on good conduct, etc."

So which argument are making? I assume both.

I'm still waiting for answers to two questions, the first about the allegation that Tony Montini was allowed to race in NJ when he was suspended in Ontario, and the second asking for names of those who can race in NJ but can't get a license anywhere else.

posted at 10:59 AM on Apr 29th 2008

Andrew Cohen said...

No, Paul. The issue also relates to licensing. New Jersey in my view could and should do more to condition licensing-- and license renewals-- on good conduct, etc.

posted at 10:44 AM on Apr 29th 2008

Paul Siegel said...

Andrew:

The word "licenses" was used, and we know the issue with the Meadowlands and NJ is not licensing, but, as you say, the inability to deny racing privileges to a licensed individual because the Meadowlands is state owned.

posted at 10:14 AM on Apr 29th 2008

Andrew Cohen said...

Paul. I understand Allan's point. Because the Meadowlands is owned by the NJSEA, a public agency, it is dramatically more difficult for its operators to ban a trainer without affording a certain (and in my opinion overdone) measure of "due process." Woodbine, on the other hand, being a private entity, can simply say: get out and stay out. So can Monticello, which also has been very aggressive, in my view, in getting rid of bad eggs.

posted at 10:07 AM on Apr 29th 2008

Paul Siegel said...

I'd like to ask Allan Schott the same question I ask everyone who makes a comment along the lines of his:

Please provide the names of those who can't get a license anywhere else, but have a NJ license.

Funny thing is, I almost never get an answer to that question, and when I do, it's always wrong.

posted at 9:46 AM on Apr 29th 2008

Allan Schott said...

Unfortunately, he will end up in NJ. NJ licenses drivers and trainers that couldn't get a license anywhere else. I don't know if the NJRC lacks the will to get involved in a big legal fight or if it just pure incompetence.

posted at 8:00 AM on Apr 29th 2008

John Buonomo said...

Lifetime bans of trainers need to stick. It seems to me that life = 2 years in this sport as some jurisdiction always seems to rise up and license the criminals. There also needs to be some sort of continued testing for the horses after the trainer gets suspended as we must get down to the beards here as well, maybe suspension of the horse?

posted at 7:56 AM on Apr 29th 2008

Jules Siegel said...

To bad we can't use DNA on these infractions or at least a smoking gun to prove guilt or innocence. Then once and for all we could we could either free the innocent or kill the bastard and clean up the game for all time. But I guess it's the big money. The culprits do it for the big purses, the tracks don't do anything because of the big PM takes, but the poor victims, the betting public continue to live in LaLa land hoping for the big hits.

posted at 7:44 AM on Apr 29th 2008

Paul Siegel said...

I know Ontario proposed a 10 year suspension for an EPO positive on a Brett Robinson-trained horse, so Elliott is probably going to be hit with something along those lines. Personally, I'd like to see a lifetime ban for anyone found guilty of an EPO violation...subject to due process for the accused.

Andrew, I don't undertand your comment on Tony Montini. NJ honors the racing suspensions of all other North American jurisdictions. If Montini has or had an in force suspension, he could not have gotten a NJ license. If there was a suspension that was in the process of being appealed and Montini had been issued a stay by the courts or the racing commission, NJ could have licensed him.

posted at 8:09 PM on Apr 28th 2008